Yesterday I mentioned the claim that H. P. Lovecraft modeled the ancient ruins in The Dunwich Horror on the alleged prehistoric stone ruins of America’s Stonehenge (formerly Mystery Hill) in New Hampshire. This reminded me of another instance where Lovecraft is tied to one of America Unearthed star Scott Wolter’s pseudo-investigations. Archaeologist Marc A. Beherec argued in Lovecraft Annual no. 2 (2004) that in “The Mound,” one of Lovecraft’s tales ghostwritten for Zealia Bishop, Lovecraft alluded to the 1924 discovery of alleged artifacts in Arizona proving the existence of a lost medieval Jewish-Roman colony in Arizona called Calalus. I do not have that Lovecraft Annual, so I’m not sure about the exact arguments Beherec offered; I don’t recall anything about “Roman” Arizona in “The Mound.” The only reference to Arizona I recall from “The Mound” was an un-sourced quotation from H. R. Wakefield’s “He Cometh and He Passeth By” (1928). I suppose one could read the whole story as a reference to a “lost” civilization in the West, but there were plenty of claimants to that title. (Update: I later learned that the lines were from chapter VII of “The Mound,” where Lovecraft mistakenly places them in New Mexico: “Surely this was the clever forgery of some learned cynic—something like the leaden crosses in New Mexico, which a jester once planted and pretended to discover as a relique of some forgotten Dark Age colony from Europe.”)

Anyway, the Lovecraft claims come into play because last year Scott Wolter traveled to Arizona to complete “microscopic” analysis of some of the lead artifacts dug up in 1924 and now known as the Tucson Artifacts. Wolter claimed that under the microscope he found mineral deposits consistent with deposition in the desert sands for a thousand years or so. Of course, Wolter’s microscopic analysis of the Kensington Runestone proved disastrously flawed, so I have no reason to trust his superficial analysis of the Tucson artifacts either. Mainstream scholars who have examined the finds have unanimously declared them fake on historical, archaeological, and linguistic grounds. The cache of 31 lead artifacts, primarily swords, crosses, and spears, supposedly chronicles the history of a colony called Calalus, founded around 775 CE and, when Jews and Romans somehow landed in the Americas. The cache contains dates down to around 1000 CE and conveniently supports Mormon claims about Jewish migrations to medieval America. Here’s a picture of one of the pieces Wolter tested, via the Westford Knights.

The Latin, very poor, reads, in translation:

“We were carried (or sailed) by sea to [error for “from”] Rome Calalus [“to Calalus” probably intended, but the case is wrong], an unknown land. They came in the Year of Our Lord 775, and Theodorus ruled of [error for “over”] the people.”

The Anno Domini dating system was not widely used before 800, and not well attested outside the Carolingian heartland until around 1000. Most medieval inscriptions also tended to abbreviate rather than write out the Latin. Worse, the specific phrases used to construct the bad Latin have been traced to standard Classical Latin texts available at the Tucson Public Library when the artifacts were found.

Supporters of the artifacts’ authenticity, such as Cyclone Covey, a former Wake Forest history professor with a longstanding interest in diffusionism, claim that the bad Latin is actually a sign that the artifacts are genuine rather than a hoax since a modern copyist wouldn’t make so many errors. Covey, for example, argued in 2004 that the errors indicated a Latin novice:

Confusing adand exby a novice in Latin compares with present-day speakers in English who reverse anteand post, terminus ad quemand terminus a pro, inductionand deduction. We have all heard such solecisms.

No, it’s really not. It’s like confusing “to” and “from.” In 775, the supposed immigrants from Rome would have by definition needed to be fluent in sermo vulgaris or rustica lingua romantica, Vulgar Latin, the common tongue from which the Romance languages developed. No matter where in Covey’s proposed mix of Romans, Britons, and Gauls the immigrants came, they would have needed a basic understanding of prepositions to communicate. Romans obviously spoke Latin. The Britons, I can only imagine, had to communicate somehow with the Romans and Gauls, and I doubt the Romans spoke Old English. Since Old French did not develop until around 800, Vulgar Latin would have been the preferred language for the former residents of Gaul. Now you might argue they spoke Gaulish, but that language went extinct under the Empire, and Old Low Frankish, a Germanic tongue, was associated with Franks (Germans), not Gauls. That said, we know that in 772 CE Boniface complained that he could not understand the pope’s Latin, and in 813 CE the Council of Tours ordered priests to preach in vernacular because common people could not understand Latin. This did not extend to basic prepositions, however, which were remained part of Vulgar Latin, Old French, and modern French. Oh, and more importantly: There is not a single archaeological trace of a colony of Europeans anywhere in Arizona. No trash middens with European artifacts, no foundations of European-style structures, no graves with European artifacts. Nothing. Perhaps most humorously, the artifacts tell a remarkably complete story that specifies that the Jewish-Roman people who came to Arizona recognized the Natives ruling all Mexico and the southwest as Toltezus, i.e. “the Toltec.” That’s cute and all, obviously derived from the Nahuatl word Toltecatl, which gives us the modern name for the Toltec people. The word derives from the Aztec (Nahuatl) formation of the words meaning “inhabitant” (catl) of Tollan, the Toltec capital. While “Toltec” is what the Aztec called the people of Tollan, we do not know what the Toltec called themselves, though they were Nahuatl speakers. The Toltec flourished from 800 to 1000 CE, but perhaps tellingly the "Toltez" term is attested as a modern (mis)spelling of Toltec, though I can only trace it back to 1931. (At any rate, the "z" is very rare for Latin; it was used only for transliterated Greek words. My guess is that the forger could have misread an italicized "c" in Toltec, such as appears in William Prescott's Mexico [1900] or in Latinized scientific uses of "toltecus" as species descriptors, in which in an italic serif typeface can look like a "z.") So how do we get the Toltec to Arizona? The answer, for Cyclone Covey and other supporters, lies at sites like Wupatki, one of the ancestral Pueblo (Anasazi) ruins we encountered last week on Ancient Aliens as part of a fictitious architectural depiction of the constellation Orion, as well as the Hohokam site of Snaketown. Both of these sites feature evidence that Mexican peoples either influenced, traded with, or immigrated to this area of Arizona. The Hohokam territory extended deep into northern Mexico. Nevertheless, while Mexican features appear at Snaketown (including luxury trade goods and platform mounds after 800 CE), it does not amount to what Covey describes as “Toltec domination of Snaketown” in the eighth century. The Hohokam could be Mexican all on their own, and they were incorporating and localizing broader Mexican cultural traits. Wupatki’s “Toltec” connection derives primarily from the fact that it has the northernmost example of Mesoamerican ball courts (also found among the Maya and most Mexican peoples), a feature Wupatki shares with (and probably borrowed from) the Hohokam. Now, to tie this all together with a bow: The Hopi, Zuni, and Navajo legends about the ruins of Wupatki. The Hopi believe that the people who lived and died in the ruins continue to haunt the site as spiritual guardians. This story of the spirit guardians perfectly parallels H. P. Lovecraft’s "The Mound," in which the ghostly forms of long-dead residents of a lost civilization patrol the titular edifice. This would have been a great way to tie together all these threads, except that Zealia Bishop actually suggested that much of the plot from a romantic imagination and a love of conventional ghost stories, and the titular mound itself was based on real mounds (and a natural hill) that actually exist in and around Binger, Oklahoma and had nothing to do with the Toltec.

It's not even funny these things are still considered genuine by some today. Anyone with a basic knowledge of early medieval weaponry will tell you the "swords" look nothing like 8th century swords, or any real swords for that matter.

They're cast from lead, sure, but there's no reason why they should look like modern theatrical "Roman" swords. Except for them actually being modern fakes.

See, 8 century swords would not have blades wider near the tip than the hilt. This is a feature VERY uncommon in any swords at any point in history, I can think of about very few incredibly specific types of swords with that feature, even remotely looking like this.

But it's a "thing" in modern drawings of ancient Roman/Greek swords by laymen with little knowledge of actual weapons, for some reason.

There are similar issues with the "spears".

A fascinating case of laughably bad fakes. Good read about the linguistic side of things!

Reply

Dr. D

8/8/2017 04:37:34 pm

Ignorance and the religion of continental isolationism abounds in so-called academic circles. The artifacts were carried standards not literal swords. The dig was done according to the protocols and standards of archeology of the day. The layer of earth/ rock above the artifacts was not a disturbed layer. Calalus existed. Because you have not found cities with European dumps only means you have been looking in the wrong places. I would suggest you are looking too far West to find anything. Up the Rio Grand up to Los Lunes (Decalogue) and then west into the Gila river basin is more probable.

I now realize that you and most of your followers are the very same people I have had issues with for years. I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, but no longer.

What I've seen here is the standard academic mindset I have seen all too often. Scholars who pretend to be open-minded when in fact their minds are closed. When faced with an opposing opinion the standard strategy is first to denegrate, then undermine, and finally dismiss, usually with an arrogant armwave. Cases in point are your dismissive comments about my research on the KRS, Bat Creek and Tucson Lead Artifacts; all of which are geniune artifacts. If you read my books and reports on these subjects carefully, and then asked questions first instead of immediately going on the attack, you might have learned something and understood why I came to the conclusions I did. I understand in this arena that "extrordinary claims demand extraordinary proof", but I am confident my work will continue to stand up to serious future scrutiny. Roll your eyes if you wish, but a close examination of the factual evidence by competent individuals will reveal what under the microscope was obvious to me.

The number one problem with 'scholars' and the Kensington Rune Stone (two words by the way) is they did not follow proper scientic method. As a person who has conducted forensic material (both cementitious based materials and rock) investigations and testified under oath to my findings for over 27 years, I think more than most I understand what proper scientific investigation is.

I also understand this is a popular debunking site and initially felt it was important to participate if the discussion was informed, open, and even somewhat civil. A number of times in the past month I've wanted to reach out and provide additional input I thought would have been helpful. I have also wondered why you have devoted so much time and so many words to our show if it as truly as bad as you say. In the past, the strong negative reaction I've received was based on fear and I sense that is part of what is going on here.

Our show certainly isn't perfect nor are we able to delve as deeply or thoroughly as I'd like and I'm sure you understand this is "television" and we're doing the best we can. However, having this amazing opportunity to bring these mysterious artifacts and sites to world at all is important. I think you'll see things get better and this matrix of shadowy and unknown history slowly come together as we go along.

Based on the evidence provided by this blog, I've concluded this a site driven by something closer to religious zealotry rather than truly scientific thinking. Paying lip service to "science" doesn't mean you practice it.

Sadly, the majority people who post on this blog have followed your example of being more concerned with "being right" than getting the right answers. The good thing is people in this country are free to like and dislike whatever they want, and most importantly, to openly express those views.

Scott, thank you for assuming I have "followers"! It's great to know that my little blog, with a budget of $0 and nearly no promotion, has such an impact that you feel the need to respond personally. Because this comment is long, I will respond in two parts.

You might have noticed that in this piece, to which you appear to have taken exception, I made no assertion about you or your work except in summarizing the article to which I linked and which you are undoubtedly familiar. I'm sorry that you and I do not agree on the quality of the evidence you provided for the Kensington Rune Stone (which is spelled both Rune Stone and Runestone depending on the author and the age of the source), but I must concur that the methodological flaws the linked article discussed were serious enough to call into question your findings.

This isn't me simply being dismissive; I have no direct knowledge of the stone and can only rely on the published materials. I found the criticism of your work compelling; others may not. This is not religious zealotry aimed against you but merely the conclusion I drew from reading the arguments for and against your work. Surely you must concede that I have the right to agree with those who found flaws in your work.

I am also sure you are aware that I have no control over the opinions of those who post comments on my site. My policy has been to let people post what they will so long as it is not obscene and does not commit libel. The people who comment here have a range of opinions, and as often as not disagree with me.

As for me being close-minded, let me ask this: What would convince you that you are wrong? All it would take to convince me is a single archaeological site, in a verifiable pre-Columbian context, with indisputable European cultural material. If you had found this, you wouldn’t be placing so much weight on objects of dubious authenticity. Where, for example, is the trash the hundreds or thousands of European colonists you propose existed must have left behind? Also: How close-minded can I be when I am actually willing to take your claims seriously enough to research them? This at least offers the possibility that they could be true.

It seems to me that you will not be happy until I agree with you, and I fear that you take disagreement for die hard opposition and anger. I don't hate you; I'm sure you are as kind and compassionate as all those who have met you say. Alternative claimants so often conflate criticism of their claims with an attack on their humanity.

I can’t imagine what “fear” you think is motivating me. Why would I fear the discovery of trans-oceanic contact? In 2007, scientists found evidence of trans-Pacific contact between Polynesia and the Americas. This was fascinating! It caused me no fear. Similarly, the discovery of the Norse colony at L’anse aux Meadows was exciting, not fear-inducing. How would any further, secure discoveries of Europeans in early America terrify me? The question is not “is this possible”; the question is: Did you prove it? As I said, I find your evidence wanting, and I resent honest disagreement over the quality of your evidence being taken as a fearful, blinkered rejection of even the possibility of contact. The problem is that I think your evidence is terrible and the reasoning you present illogical. This is a disagreement over evidence and argumentation, not abject terror that you’ve stumbled on some hidden secret.

(Surely, you must concede that your program is more one-sided than my blog since I present the evidence for both sides, with sources and references, even where I disagree.)

I don’t have any special pass-key to the Academic Conspiracy’s secret meeting-room. If everyone in academia disagrees with you, it may be because you are mistaken.

I don’t waste words on your program for my health or my personal enjoyment; I discuss it because no one else is looking critically at your claims. Thousands of readers are looking to find the facts behind your claims, which I note neither you nor H2 make available to interested parties. I shouldn’t have to go digging through 1,000 pages of Diodorus Siculus to find out what your “expert” is talking about, as in S01E06. Others need that information, too, and I guess I’m the one to give it to them. Believe you me, there are days I wish I never started.

You are the one who is asserting to an audience of millions that scientists are conspirators and that history is a lie. That is a tremendously audacious claim. It’s up to you to prove that case, and since no one else is willing to discuss the shortcoming of your claims, I will do that job to the best of my ability. But if you want to sit here and tell me that only you are qualified to evaluate evidence and draw conclusions to share with others, let me share this with you: You have a bachelor’s in geology and no special training in archaeology and deign to tell the world that every other scientist is wrong. I have a bachelor’s in archaeology and in broadcast journalism, so when I tell you that your program is bad television and bad archaeology, that isn’t just me blowing smoke. That’s my “expert” opinion. By your own logic, that means something.

That said, I invite you to continue commenting as you see fit. Please do feel free to tell me where I’ve gone wrong in criticizing your program. After all, I can and do make errors and I am always happy to acknowledge where I’ve gone wrong. As I have done with ever alternative thinker who contacted me, I am happy to give you the chance to write a piece, which I will run unedited, explaining what I’ve done wrong and making the case for your belief. You can contact me at my email for the details.

Your points are well taken and I respect your opinion. I still find your criticism a little extreme given the context of our show. It is not intended to the final word (well, maybe in a couple cases), it is intended to incite reasoned debate and follow-up. As I stated before, we simply cannot go into the level of detail these matters require. However, the opinions I express are based on the facts I have in front of me and if you listen carefully, I try to make it clear when I am speculating and what I consider to be fact. I'm sure we miss the mark sometimes, but I try to be careful.

In any case, we got word recently we will get a second season so unfortunately, you will have to suffer through another season. Tell you what, if we ever run into each other I'll buy the first beer.

I appreciate your comments, Scott, and I trust you can accept that my blog posts are the "debate and follow-up" you hoped to incite. I doubt, though, that my blog posts can be considered any more extreme that your claim at the beginning of every episode that history is a lie and that historians and archaeologists are purposely lying to the public to cover up a hidden history, a claim that is breathtaking in its audacity.

Congratulations on your second season, and I hope that my comments and criticisms will help inform your program going forward. I look forward to seeing solid evidence in support of your claims.

terry the censor

2/4/2013 06:20:00 pm

Come on, Mr Wolter, be honest. Jason makes substantial and specific criticisms but in your first comment you address NONE of them. Your response is entirely ad hominem, followed up later by plenty of self-pity. Jason is unfailing polite but you see yourself as a victim of irrational hatred.

Can you entertain for even a moment that criticism of you might be motivated by a genuine belief that you're simply wrong?

Reply

tru leigh

2/26/2013 11:05:45 am

Thumbs up!

Reply

G. R. Bullaro

3/5/2013 11:19:17 am

Dear Mr. Wolter, having recently been foolish enough to watch the Tucson artifact episode of your America Unearthed series, I have absolutely no qualms in concluding that you have no knowledge whatsoever of the scientific method and how to conduct an investigation. The way that you make fantastic leaps of logic (or I should say illogic) is shameless. The false syllogisms are even worse. And last but not least, as evidenced not only from the television program but from the above letter that you have written, your lack of command of English grammar is frightening. A forensic geologist may not be an English scholar, but for god's sake you should know the basics of grammar and spelling. I refuse to believe that you have any academic degrees. You are a complete charlatan masquerading as an intellectual liberal. Please leave the scientific investigations to people who are trained to know how to do them.

Reply

José Antonio Hernández

7/9/2013 07:10:33 pm

Mr. Wolter, I was watching your show with real interest here in Mexico, which, by the way, it's called "Misterios Revelados". But as soon as you mentioned that something (I don't remember what) would lead you to the Holy Grail, that very minute I realized that most of your investigations were similar to the ones made by the "Alien Chasers", you and they always leave me with the feeling that something is missing, a lack of real proof. I can see when someone tells you that something is not genuine, you cannot hide your anger.
That's it, thank you.

A couple of follow-up comments are neccessary given that I now realize you are getting this garbage information from my co-author and former friend. I suspect he is the one who tipped you off about the honorary degree that he was well aware of including its context.

Instead of trying to explain the problem with this person's attempts to undermine me at every turn, in the interest of fairness I would ask that you post a paper written by the grandson of the discoverer of the KRS, Darwin Ohman, entitled, "Taking a Stand."

During the time this person and I were working together, Darwin considered him to be one of his hero's. After witnessing a series of events and the bogus research unfold over the past seven years, this otherwise nonconfrontational person was compelled to act. He was assisted in the paper's preparation by one of your followers, Lynn Brant, who did a terrific job at that time. The paper is supported by factual documentation and speaks for itself.

It also provides tragic examples of people so driven by hate (of me in this case) and the need for control they will undermine their own research to bring another down. You are being used to further this nonsense and he knew you would jump all over this in an attempt to put me down for the very reasons stated in the previous post. The greatest tragedy of all is these selfish actions do the most damage to this amazing artifact and the history it represents.

I have nothing to do with the conspiracy you see acting against you. I do not know any of the people you discussed, nor have I spoken with them. I was not "tipped off" by anyone. I also resent the implication that my evaluations are anything other than my own work.

Yes, I have received emails from people who have a deep interest in your work (as I also receive messages about Ancient Aliens stars and sundry others), but I have not passed on any of their extreme claims about you, which I certainly do not believe. Believe it or not, I do my best to be fair. I know you are approaching your claims honestly, even if I disagree with your conclusions.

I learned about your master's degree all on my own after a commenter on my blog mentioned your academic credentials. I tried to verify and came up short. I am capable of doing research on my own; it does go with the journalism territory.

Nor are my views on the KRS dependent on just one analysis by one author you consider "against" you. My information also comes from Bad Archaeology, whose proprietors I have had lovely conversations with, as well as Ken Feder, whom I also know and whose opinions I trust. You may not agree with them, but they have always been open, honest, and forthright in my experience with them. Again, I stress that disagreements over evidence do not constitute a conspiracy or hatred on my part.

Reply

Rev. Americanegro

9/4/2016 05:27:57 pm

"Jason,

A couple of follow-up comments are neccessary given that I now realize you are getting this garbage information from my co-author and former friend. I suspect he is the one who tipped you off about the honorary degree that he was well aware of including its context. "

Mr. Wolter,

Even in the written word you display the ready-snap-at-any-moment mien of the conflicted closeted homosexual, likely with a secret drinking problem; you strike me as a gin man. No one's out to get you, it's just that you come across as an enormous boob.

OK, let me ask you this. I claim that a medieval party, almost certainly led by the ideological descendants of the post put-down Templar Knights (likely the eight Goths) and traveling with Native Americans carved and buried the KRS as a land claim. Before you scoff, have you compared the four Mide' win rituals with the Masonic Knights Templar degrees the earliest missionaries and fur traders said the Natives were practicing when they got here? They are identical and I will be publishing this research in my forthcoming book.

My question to you given this scenario is, what would you expect these people to leave as trash that would finger them as European? Wouldn't they kill and eat animals the same way as their Native brothers? I've participated in archaeological digs in Minnesota and asked the attending archaeologists the same question and they were stumped. I suppose they could leave behind a knife, chainmail, or sword, but I highly doubt it. I'm at a loss as to what you would find in that archaeological context.

We all know a lack of evidence proves nothing, so at this point we are left with only the KRS and the rounded triangular shaped stone holes (that can only be made using a straight chisel and a hammer) that my wife and I discovered triangulate exactly where the KRS was found. Of course, logic dictiates they had to have a method for relocating the land claim artifact and this appears to be the method employed.

And what about all the other unexplained stone holes all across this country and on the land masses between here and Europe? They sure as Hell are not mooring stones as many have claimed; so what are they? Why do the archaeologists I've discussed this with dismiss this thesis and insist they were made for blasting the rocks when the physical evidence refutes this?

I'm happy to tell you, Scott, that I don't know about the holes. But I also know that because I don't know something, it doesn't mean that Vikings or Knights Templar did it, any more than aliens. There are many things I don't know, and that's part of the excitement of archaeology: learning new things.

I'm also not sure how you would read the KRS as a boundary marker. So far as I can tell from my review of the literature on medieval boundary markers (and the medieval period is not my area of specialization), these were typically not carved stones; according to scholars specializing in Scandinavian border marking in the medieval period (and there are some!), medieval laws governed what items could be used for marking borders, and while these included stones, they were natural stone formations, not artificial monuments. Besides, to whom would the writing have been directed if there were but eight Europeans in the whole region?

Nor is my expertise in occult rites, but I am troubled by the conflation of the Knights Templar and the Freemasons, which has been subject to much speculation but is not a recognized fact. So far as I know, and you are welcome to provide evidence otherwise, the "connection" to the Midewin was made my Masons themselves in 1922, when one argued that anthropologists had failed to detect Masonic rites in the Midewin ceremonies they recorded (in distorted and confused form, of course) decades earlier. The author deduced these rites himself, from the "distorted" account. At any rate, this would be very recent, and I can't see its relevance to the medieval period given the vast changes caused by the Contact Period. Or perhaps the Masons have a secret rite that uses turtles to intercede with the spirit realm, as in Midewin ritual, about which I know nothing.

As for what trash the travelers would leave behind, that would be a great question. Obviously, the first thing would be their bodies and equipment, though I suppose you would argue they returned home. You're right that an individual traveler, or a small group, may not have left enough behind to be visible in the archaeological record. But a colony of Phoenicians or one of Romano-Jews, as above, would have left vast evidence of their long and continued occupation, and that isn't there at all.

Reply

Jake

2/22/2013 04:36:20 pm

Who says the Romans who came to Arizona occupied the territory or setup permanent structures? You're speculating about what happened. Perhaps the reason no ruins were found is because no structures were built. This doesn't mean they weren't there as part of a long term expedition.

Rev. Americanegro

9/4/2016 05:30:52 pm

"My question to you given this scenario is, what would you expect these people to leave as trash that would finger them as European? Wouldn't they kill and eat animals the same way as their Native brothers? I've participated in archaeological digs in Minnesota and asked the attending archaeologists the same question and they were stumped. I suppose they could leave behind a knife, chainmail, or sword, but I highly doubt it. I'm at a loss as to what you would find in that archaeological context."

The answer to this question is so easy for anyone with even a casual exposure to archaelogy (which you seem to lack) and and which you clearly lack that I'm inclined to believe this story is a lie or you drastically changed it in the retailing, I mean retelling.

The answer is....

POTTERY

Reply

Clint Knapp

1/27/2013 07:12:43 pm

While I certainly can't speak directly to the geological or archaeological claims made in this most interesting discussion- as I am neither and expert nor a television personality with a show to defend- there is just one point I want to make.

Mr. Wolter, you said:
"Sadly, the majority people who post on this blog have followed your example of being more concerned with "being right" than getting the right answers. The good thing is people in this country are free to like and dislike whatever they want, and most importantly, to openly express those views."

A cleverly constructed statement, which one could argue that even the act of disagreeing with is in and of itself a need to "be right", but one that I (and likely others reading this blog) must take offense to. This sort of broad declaration of the intent of others is the same sort of insult that gives rise to the "alternative archaeologist" claim that "mainstream scientists" are all in a conspiracy to veil the truth from the people.

I myself found Mr. Colavito's blog through Dr. Michael Heiser's blog while investigating the claims made by ancient astronaut godfather Zecharia Sitchin. While not an expert by any means, I'd always had a strong historical bend and when I heard the sort of things Sitchin was claiming about the Sumerians I decided to research it for myself and used blogs such as Dr. Heiser's and Mr. Colavito's as a jumping off point to find resources to draw my own conclusions from.

As a reader of this and many other such blogs, I am always on the search for truth and do not take any one person's views or information as an absolute without first confirming their sources for myself. I am not alone in this approach, as evidenced by hundreds of comments from regular readers.

Please do not reduce us to your preconceived notions of what it means to be a 'follower'. The truth belongs to no man save those which he discovers for himself.

Reply

Christopher Randolph

1/29/2013 03:32:10 am

Jason, you're being WAY too polite to this lying idiot.

Wolter is a no-talent non-archeologist, non-scientist who I seriously doubt even believes half the nonsense he spews.

He's a TV character, paid to make outrageous claims. You might as well be arguing with Ronald McDonald about the health benefits of a Big Mac and supersized fries.

Wolter - your problem IS that many of us do independent thinking. Your TV show - with its wide audience and comparatively large budget - purports to be an authority, as do you. (Otherwise WHY DO IT?) You declare yourself the last word. You declare thousands of real archeologists wrong. You are the absolutist.

It's amazing how one fellow is supposed to be an expert on native North Amreicans (the whole continent pretty much) AND the Minoans AND Vikings AND Templars, etc etc. You specialize in everything apparently. And without any degree to show for it. Funny, that.

The premise isn't that you're supposed to be discussing these issues seriously. That's the last thing you want. What is the forum or format the show provides for that? There isn't any. Where is the presentation of contradictory evidence or dissenting voices? There isn't any.

You're a clown with a sideshow, and a knowing charlatan.

Reply

Lynn Brant

2/3/2013 01:34:30 am

Jason, You might ask Scott who wrote the "Taking a Stand" essay he refers to. (I did) By the way, I have a short story on the KRS ready for publication soon that might be very illuminating. (hint: it's a hoax).

Reply

Jake

2/22/2013 03:36:21 pm

I would very much like to know how exactly you have determined the KRS is a fake? I'm no expert, my field is psychology and counter terrorism, nonetheless I take an interest in these things. What evidence have you found that proves it's fake? The Larson Papers seem to prove the validity of the runes and the report attached to this story that is meant to damn Mr. Wolter seems to support the claim that the stone is far older than mid 1800's. In fact that report doesn't seem too damning to Wolter as it only says he underestimated the age of the stone but everyone seems to agree that it is at least 200 years old. I am extremely interested to know what you have found that concludes this to be a hoax. Do you have a picture of Olaf burying the stone? So far the evidence seems to conclude that the stone is genuine.

Reply

Loren St. Vincent

2/5/2013 06:16:23 am

Pardon my involuntary laughter at this whole dialogue.

How often do you hear of researchers who follow proper and accepted scientific standards argue the results of their work through posts on the internet? Studies based on proper science is either published where it can be scrutinized and accepted by the community of peers, or it or it does not.

It’s that simple.

Reply

Lynn Brant

2/5/2013 06:34:35 am

That certainly holds true for the geological conclusions. But it seems to me there is much else where there is simply not enough evidence to prove one thing or another. Take for example the runes themselves, and when the were in use and when they became known in modernity. That's not subject to a scientific study.

Reply

Janiece Stamper

2/8/2013 05:09:16 pm

I am not a geologist, nor am I an archeologist, that being said, I find no merit as a researcher in berating the work and conclusions of Mr. Wolter. I find both of your arguments interesting, albeit, I'm inclined (I live in Arizona) to agree with Mr. Wolter's work and I believe that there is a strong case for pre-Columbian contact. My families arrived in Delaware in the mid-1600 and have a strong written and oral history within it.

Some 'scientific' work of the 1800's is by people with no more education than the credentials they created. While I believe most of their work was conducted within the scientific parameters of the day, many were silenced by a culture that continues to permeate many of the most important scientific studies.

If you dare to buck the system, your work is maligned and your reputation most often ruined beyond any repair.

How is this scientific process? It is the antithesis of that process.

Nothing is proved beyond a doubt in either argument, but I know that so much has been covered over, suppressed, shoved onto the top shelf in someone else’s office, or however you choose to describe it.

One of the men that opened up the Southwest was so dismissed you can only find true accounts of his work in his journals and old news accounts, or where it is convienant to publish.

Why not argue your research in this venue?

If you publish a theory contrary to the party line, which is strongly anti-pre-Columbian contact, and concludes that a canal system that could have sustained 200,000 people throughout the Phoenix area, and was un-utilized and completely mis-understood by the Indian population found there. Then bulldozed over and replaced by an expensive and environmentally detrimental system, which destroyed an eco-system we are just beginning to comprehend. The number of native fish that are now extinct is beyond acceptable.

So yes, I think, and I'm a reasonable person, that Mr. Wolter's curiosity and conclusions are not only okay to argue and defend here or anywhere else. But all this getting your panties in a 'wad' is fun and entertaining to say the least.

Mr. Wolter is out there, doing the footwork. The incidence of archeoastronomy is important and too often dismissed. It was used in too many ancient cultures to be a 'fluke'.

I get the frustrations of a weekly TV venue and its limitations, but having walked the desert and finding the unusual is not a rare occurrence, and having once observing a young teacher trying to explain a series of cuts, or lines in a large rock as ‘the Indians sharpening their tomahawks,’ then watching a child trace those same lines with an obvious curiosity and clear disbelief. When I asked him what he thought of that, he said, ‘I think they were sayin’ something’. I laughed, charmed at his conclusion.

Why the venom in the arguments against, they seem more like tirades than rational debate. It gets nowhere and harms the process.

gossamer11@aol.com

Reply

Lynn Brant

2/8/2013 11:23:13 pm

"Mr. Wolter is out there."

That much is true. Wayyy out there.

Reply

terry the censor

2/9/2013 04:18:55 am

> Some 'scientific' work of the 1800's is by people with no more education than the credentials they created

Ever hear of Georges Cuvier and Louis Agassiz and Charles Lyell?

Your own tirade is low on facts and high on conspiracy theory..

Reply

Janiece

2/18/2013 07:06:42 am

LOL, my ponder considered a tirade? tehe!
Yes, I have heard of your 3 scientists... preeminent in their fields of study, lovely Victorian reading, and without those and others it goes without saying we wouldn't have the science we have today. Same goes for John Wesley Powell, David Starr Jordan, Cushing, Humboldt and the list goes on. I find all of the early archeologists a fascinating subject.
But that isn't the point of what you are railing against is it? Isn't true scientific research by nature one of turning around and perhaps challenging old paradigms? Taking a look at old evidence with a new mind set. Look at Schoch's work at the Spinx, he went in with a critical eye and thank goodness he was already tenured.
In reading the field notes of many 'ethnologists' during the late 1800's, I found that if they challenged the already set expectations, they didn't last long?
Why are so many sites closed off? I see it here in Arizona more and more, and where are the objects found during the pioneer times? Stuffed in dusty boxes, with very little hope of retrieval.
I'm saying that Wolter is challenging the set expectations, he is rattling cages and asking questions, and why shouldn't we listen with open minds and our own questions without getting hammered?
I don't agree with some of his conclusions, but I'll defend his right to put them out there, and I find the show both compelling and entertaining.
I wish someone would investigate the site Los Muertos again, it was called America's Pompeii, when initially found, literally a city that something happened so suddenly, they walked away with food still on the fire.
If you look at the map of the canals originally found here in the Phoenix area, which caused so much wonder, they are very much like the ones found in Peru, and rather than utilizing the system, they build a dam and condemn many, many indigenous species to their doom. The engineering is magnificent, I have a map from the early 1900's that shows the extent of the canal system and its an amazing story, one that has never been told.
Snarky quips, while slightly entertaining, don't actually answer questions.
Janiece

Janiece Stamper

2/18/2013 07:07:29 am

LOL, my ponder considered a tirade? tehe!
Yes, I have heard of your 3 scientists... preeminent in their fields of study, lovely Victorian reading, and without those and others it goes without saying we wouldn't have the science we have today. Same goes for John Wesley Powell, David Starr Jordan, Cushing, Humboldt and the list goes on. I find all of the early archeologists a fascinating subject.
But that isn't the point of what you are railing against is it? Isn't true scientific research by nature one of turning around and perhaps challenging old paradigms? Taking a look at old evidence with a new mind set. Look at Schoch's work at the Spinx, he went in with a critical eye and thank goodness he was already tenured.
In reading the field notes of many 'ethnologists' during the late 1800's, I found that if they challenged the already set expectations, they didn't last long?
Why are so many sites closed off? I see it here in Arizona more and more, and where are the objects found during the pioneer times? Stuffed in dusty boxes, with very little hope of retrieval.
I'm saying that Wolter is challenging the set expectations, he is rattling cages and asking questions, and why shouldn't we listen with open minds and our own questions without getting hammered?
I don't agree with some of his conclusions, but I'll defend his right to put them out there, and I find the show both compelling and entertaining.
I wish someone would investigate the site Los Muertos again, it was called America's Pompeii, when initially found, literally a city that something happened so suddenly, they walked away with food still on the fire.
If you look at the map of the canals originally found here in the Phoenix area, which caused so much wonder, they are very much like the ones found in Peru, and rather than utilizing the system, they build a dam and condemn many, many indigenous species to their doom. The engineering is magnificent, I have a map from the early 1900's that shows the extent of the canal system and its an amazing story, one that has never been told.
Snarky quips, while slightly entertaining, don't actually answer questions.
Janiece

Janiece Stamper

2/9/2013 04:08:46 am

Sorry clicked wrong button, didn't mean to unsub, please reinstate.

Reply

Janiece Stamper

2/9/2013 05:36:41 am

How is Scott Wolter, 'wayyy out there?'
He is investigating things I and many others are very curious about, what makes this so far out?
Janiece

Reply

Lynn Brant

2/9/2013 09:24:37 am

Before we know it, he will be taking us to the "Mystery House" where it leans and the ball rolls uphill. lol

Oh wait, Brad Metzler's Decoded already did that.

Reply

Dolores

3/31/2015 12:27:06 am

"Before we know it, he will be taking us to the "Mystery House" where it leans and the ball rolls uphill. lol

Oh wait, Brad Metzler's Decoded already did that." Lynn Brant

That, young lady Lynn Brant, is truly condescending and not worthy of a person of your intellect!

Janiece Stamper

2/18/2013 07:17:33 am

First it wouldn't let me publish then it does it twice... sorry.

Reply

Rev. Americanegro

9/4/2016 05:40:48 pm

One thing I've noticed here is that it's usually Wolter's defenders who do the multiple posting. My colleague Rev. Phil Gotsch is the worst offender. He's offended so much one could almost say he's a registered offender.

Reply

Jake

2/22/2013 04:04:16 pm

A lot of what you're basing your argument on can be easily countered. First, the report you attached that is meant to show Mr. Wolter as incompetent doesn't really do the trick. The report indicates his method was flawed only partially. It is still agreed that the KRS is at least 200 years old and is likely far older. The only real fault found with Wolter's conclusion seems to be that he underestimated the age of the stone.

Second, simply because AD was not "widely" used doesn't mean it wasn't used here. The AD dating system was developed around 525AD so it had plenty of time to become know to a fair amount of people. Your speculation here is not proof of anything.

Third you claim that any travelers from Rome would have been fluent in Latin or vulgar Latin and the grammatical errors prove this is a fake. The West Roman Empire fell in 476 and between this time and formation of the Holy Roman Empire in 800AD people from all over Europe passed through Rome. Latin was not the official language of anything since there was no official country ruling this region. It's entirely possible that a person with only a primitive understanding of Latin was on this expedition and created these carvings. Again you're speculating, and poorly at that.

Fourth, simply because there are no Roman style ruins in the American Southwest does not mean that an expedition did not pass through there. Perhaps they chose not to construct permanent buildings because they were traveling. Perhaps they all died before they could build anything. Perhaps there were no graves because they were all killed by natives who dumped all their belongings into a hole to sit for 1200 years. Just because there are no permanent signs of their passing doesn't mean they didn't pass through there. There is barely any evidence at all that a settlement was constructed at Roanoke but we know it was there.

Fifth just because Toltec is what the Aztec called the Toltec people doesn't mean that isn't what they called themselves. You said yourself we don't know what they called themselves. For all we know they called themselves Toltec and the Aztecs picked it up from them. You weren't there, you don't know.

Your entire argument against the Tucson artifacts is based on speculation and the absence of proof to the contrary. The absence of proof is not proof. That said, it is entirely possible that the artifacts were faked and all of this is a big hoax. At the same time, you have to admit that it is entirely possible that the artifacts are real and that a party did come from Rome in 800AD and make it to Arizona. You can't offer a single piece of evidence that definitively says Romans never came to Arizona and because of this you must admit that it is possible.

Did you listen to yourself? "Absence of proof is not proof." And yet you want me to believe that it is my burden to "prove" Romans were "not" in Arizona?

Further, do you have any knowledge of medieval European languages or the gradual adoption of the calendar system? It sounds like you are talking without any knowledge whatsoever beyond Wikipedia.

The fact that they built no permanent settlements is disturbing because the artifacts claim that they lived in the area for many decades, if not centuries.

Reply

Jake

2/23/2013 04:31:31 am

The proof that they were there is the artifacts that were found. It is on you to prove they are fake, which you have not done. You're attempting to discredit these artifacts as fake by pointing to a lack of other evidence to support their authenticity. That argument does not work. The absence of evidence is not proof of theory. Furthermore, the artifacts do not indicate they lived in Arizona for several years. They merely indicate that the expedition lasted several years. They could have spent several years living in Mexico before traveling north into Arizona where they met their end. You simply do not know.

As far as my knowledge of dating systems and language, I know enough to know that the AD dating system was created nearly 300 years before the dates on the artifacts which is more than enough time for that system to have into wide use. I also know that between the fall of Rome in 476 and the formation of the Holy Roman Empire in 800 Rome itself was ruled by several factions from all over Europe which means Latin was not the official language of Rome so it's entirely possible members of this expedition did not have expert knowledge of Latin. I also know that education was not widespread which means even if someone could speak Latin fluently that does not mean they could write it fluently.

Considering that you are not university trained expert in world history, linguistics, archeology or ancient societies, I would refrain from questioning the knowledge of others. Until you have Dr. attached to your name or at least have a graduate degree relevant to this topic you are no more an expert than anyone else who has ever read a book on ancient Rome.

I'm not an expert, but I know how to call them up or email to ask. You're undrestanding of the AD dating system is very simplistic. It was invented in the 500s but not adopted until Charlemagne, and then only in Germany, and not until much later elsewhere.

As I explained in my piece, the people specifically claimed to have made the artifacts spoke Vulgar Latin (on its way to becoming Italian, French, etc.) and would be expected to know how to use their own pronouns.

Jake

2/23/2013 04:46:27 am

I also notice that you did not provide counters to any of my other points which would seem to validate my claim that your argument is based largely on speculation and assumptions which you cannot support.

Your entire position is "assume they are genuine until proved fake," but the real world works on the opposite principle: the person making the claim to change the status quo has the burden of proving his case. Otherwise, you'd be subject to the predations of every hoaxer and scam artist in the world.

Jake

2/22/2013 04:04:25 pm

A lot of what you're basing your argument on can be easily countered. First, the report you attached that is meant to show Mr. Wolter as incompetent doesn't really do the trick. The report indicates his method was flawed only partially. It is still agreed that the KRS is at least 200 years old and is likely far older. The only real fault found with Wolter's conclusion seems to be that he underestimated the age of the stone.

Second, simply because AD was not "widely" used doesn't mean it wasn't used here. The AD dating system was developed around 525AD so it had plenty of time to become know to a fair amount of people. Your speculation here is not proof of anything.

Third you claim that any travelers from Rome would have been fluent in Latin or vulgar Latin and the grammatical errors prove this is a fake. The West Roman Empire fell in 476 and between this time and formation of the Holy Roman Empire in 800AD people from all over Europe passed through Rome. Latin was not the official language of anything since there was no official country ruling this region. It's entirely possible that a person with only a primitive understanding of Latin was on this expedition and created these carvings. Again you're speculating, and poorly at that.

Fourth, simply because there are no Roman style ruins in the American Southwest does not mean that an expedition did not pass through there. Perhaps they chose not to construct permanent buildings because they were traveling. Perhaps they all died before they could build anything. Perhaps there were no graves because they were all killed by natives who dumped all their belongings into a hole to sit for 1200 years. Just because there are no permanent signs of their passing doesn't mean they didn't pass through there. There is barely any evidence at all that a settlement was constructed at Roanoke but we know it was there.

Fifth just because Toltec is what the Aztec called the Toltec people doesn't mean that isn't what they called themselves. You said yourself we don't know what they called themselves. For all we know they called themselves Toltec and the Aztecs picked it up from them. You weren't there, you don't know.

Your entire argument against the Tucson artifacts is based on speculation and the absence of proof to the contrary. The absence of proof is not proof. That said, it is entirely possible that the artifacts were faked and all of this is a big hoax. At the same time, you have to admit that it is entirely possible that the artifacts are real and that a party did come from Rome in 800AD and make it to Arizona. You can't offer a single piece of evidence that definitively says Romans never came to Arizona and because of this you must admit that it is possible.

Reply

terry the censor

2/23/2013 03:55:34 am

> The absence of proof is not proof.

This is typical pseudo-scientific reasoning. James Moseley said of this demented logic: "In truth, the absence of evidence after a thorough investigation is a strong clue that what was not found does not exist or did not happen, and common sense says go with that until contrary clues show up." (Shockingly Close to the Truth, p 313)

> You can't offer a single piece of evidence that definitively says Romans never came to Arizona and because of this you must admit that it is possible.

That is entirely backwards. The claimant must provide positive proof that withstands scrutiny.

Reply

Jake

2/23/2013 04:38:03 am

The proof that they came to America is the artifacts. It's you who has not provided any proof that they did not come to America. It is you who has not proved these artifacts are fake. As I said, it is entirely possible these are fakes but until you or someone else has proven it definitively you must accept it is possible they are genuine. You're the one making claims without proof.

Dolores

3/31/2015 12:44:26 am

"In truth, the absence of evidence after a thorough investigation is a strong clue that what was not found does not exist or did not happen, and common sense says go with that until contrary clues show up." (Shockingly Close to the Truth, p 313)" via Terry the censor

"the absence of evidence after a thorough investigation" from the above are key words.

Wolter has been quite open about not always being able to fully research the specific site and/or artifacts to his satisfaction. He IS doing something to point out these different strange sites and artifacts. (According to Sue Adcock at Brown University, everything and person makes is an artifact.)

We live in America. Wolter is entitled to his opinion and his own conclusions just as you and I are.

I learned in the MBibArch program and in several other archaeology classes that it is acceptable to say, The absence of proof is NOT proof there is none! It may take more lifetimes than ours to sort out the facts.

In the meantime try really hard to be civil and charitable. Name calling is childish and redundant! Further it cannot do anything but cause more hate chat.

Jake

2/22/2013 04:04:36 pm

A lot of what you're basing your argument on can be easily countered. First, the report you attached that is meant to show Mr. Wolter as incompetent doesn't really do the trick. The report indicates his method was flawed only partially. It is still agreed that the KRS is at least 200 years old and is likely far older. The only real fault found with Wolter's conclusion seems to be that he underestimated the age of the stone.

Second, simply because AD was not "widely" used doesn't mean it wasn't used here. The AD dating system was developed around 525AD so it had plenty of time to become know to a fair amount of people. Your speculation here is not proof of anything.

Third you claim that any travelers from Rome would have been fluent in Latin or vulgar Latin and the grammatical errors prove this is a fake. The West Roman Empire fell in 476 and between this time and formation of the Holy Roman Empire in 800AD people from all over Europe passed through Rome. Latin was not the official language of anything since there was no official country ruling this region. It's entirely possible that a person with only a primitive understanding of Latin was on this expedition and created these carvings. Again you're speculating, and poorly at that.

Fourth, simply because there are no Roman style ruins in the American Southwest does not mean that an expedition did not pass through there. Perhaps they chose not to construct permanent buildings because they were traveling. Perhaps they all died before they could build anything. Perhaps there were no graves because they were all killed by natives who dumped all their belongings into a hole to sit for 1200 years. Just because there are no permanent signs of their passing doesn't mean they didn't pass through there. There is barely any evidence at all that a settlement was constructed at Roanoke but we know it was there.

Fifth just because Toltec is what the Aztec called the Toltec people doesn't mean that isn't what they called themselves. You said yourself we don't know what they called themselves. For all we know they called themselves Toltec and the Aztecs picked it up from them. You weren't there, you don't know.

Your entire argument against the Tucson artifacts is based on speculation and the absence of proof to the contrary. The absence of proof is not proof. That said, it is entirely possible that the artifacts were faked and all of this is a big hoax. At the same time, you have to admit that it is entirely possible that the artifacts are real and that a party did come from Rome in 800AD and make it to Arizona. You can't offer a single piece of evidence that definitively says Romans never came to Arizona and because of this you must admit that it is possible.

Reply

Jake

2/22/2013 04:07:16 pm

Sorry about the multiple posts, the page glitched on me.

Reply

Lynn Brant

2/23/2013 12:00:21 am

Let's stipulate, for the moment, that Scott really did discover a new technology for dating carvings in stone. This was over a decade ago now. Wouldn't you think we would have seen university geology departments all over the world jumping to replicate the work, expand it, make it part of their curriculum? I mean, there aren't that many breakthroughs in the field of rocks, are there? Why haven't we seen dozens of doctoral dissertations on the subject? Are geology professors not expected to "publish or perish" like the rest of the academics? But yet, no journal articles.

It would seem that the academic community in geology never even did a double-take at this new technology. But yet, Scott wants to know why no-one has proven it wrong. I've been asking that question, and what I've been told is that it boils down to the same thing that underpins America Unearthed, money. If the government (or for that matter the History Channel) coughed up a few million for a university to undertake the project, I daresay it would be soundly dis-proven within a year.

Authentic breakthroughs in geology or any other discipline don't lie around on the shelf for years. The academic scavengers rush in to sniff, and if there is anything there they strip it to the bone. Apparently, none of them even want to sniff the carcass of the KRS and the claim that it can be dated to over 200 years old.

ps I suggest that the millions of Jason's "followers" each chip in a buck, and we'll hire some real geologists to put this to rest.

Reply

Jake

2/23/2013 04:43:30 am

Jason - "As I explained in my piece, the people specifically claimed to have made the artifacts spoke Vulgar Latin (on its way to becoming Italian, French, etc.) and would be expected to know how to use their own pronouns."

You're assuming that being able to speak a language means one is able to write in that language. Just because someone can speak a language properly does not mean they can write in it properly. A Germanic person could have learned to speak Latin but may not have learned how to write Latin properly. Again, you're making assumptions.

So they are fluent enough to quote Cicero, but ignorant enough to not understand it?

The people in question were not claimed to be Germanic but rather Romans (Latin-speakers), Roman Jews (Latin again), and Gauls (Vulgar Latin or Old French).

Reply

Jake

2/23/2013 04:50:44 am

As I already said, the West Roman Empire fell in 476. Rome was occupied by several barbarian tribes between 476 and 800 to include Germanic peoples. Being from Rome doesn't mean that person was of Roman decent. It simply indicates they left from Rome. Why don't you understand this? Just because a person is from America doesn't mean they speak perfect English, they could be Asian American, Latin American, Russian American etc...

The Roman Empire didn't cease to exist in 476. That's when the last Western emperor was deposed. Under Roman legal theory, the empire was then wholly controlled by the emperor in Constantinople, whom Odoacer and Theodoric both acknowledged as sovereign. The transition from Rome to the Middle Ages was subtle, gradual, and not equal in every location.

Jake

2/23/2013 04:54:50 am

Jason - "Your entire position is "assume they are genuine until proved fake," but the real world works on the opposite principle: the person making the claim to change the status quo has the burden of proving his case. Otherwise, you'd be subject to the predations of every hoaxer and scam artist in the world."

Wolter provided evidence that indicates these artifacts are genuine based on the caliche accumulations on the artifacts. You may not agree with it completely but you have not provided anything even remotely as substantial that counters his claim of authenticity. Where is your proof that they are fake? Prove Wolter wrong. His examination concluded they are genuine, prove him wrong. If you provide proof that is solid I will agree they are fake. I have already admitted it is possible they are fake. You refuse to admit the possibility that they are genuine based only on your assumptions of history.

You do realize this was written before the episode aired? My current thoughts on his science are provided in my review, posted today. That said, these kinds of claims don't have two equal sides. It's up to the person asking for a change in the status quo to provide enough evidence to support the change. Wolter hasn't done that. His "examination," for example, failed to account for rainfall, capillary action, and the water table, all factors that affect the formation of caliche.

Reply

Lynn Brant

2/23/2013 05:57:28 am

I have to disagree that it is a matter of "status quo," since the status quo might have been arrived at with very flawed logic, or by default. For example, the status quo opinion is that the Newport Tower is a colonial windmill, even though the evidence for that is very weak, and far from conclusive. That flawed status quo came about because "other" theories of the tower's origin couldn't "prove" they were correct. Ergo, if it isn't Templar, or Norse, or Portuguese or Chinese, then it MUST be a colonial windmill. I don't know what its origins are, but I know colonial windmill is not a parsimonious or even plausible explanation, even though it is the staus quo.

Rich

2/23/2013 05:58:24 am

Jason, I enjoy this blog and discussion.

eventhough I am entertained by Scotts show, I am concerned by his posts now, that this is a carefully, crafted well written scam for him to make a name for himself and sell more of his books.

For me, it was the way he shrugged off not having an actual honorary degree. And second, he immediately attacks the followers of this blog, and you just because you are raising valid questions.

I am alwauys suspect of anyone who hates those who ask why, what, who, and where, and finally, prove it.

He needs a disclaimer at the end of this show stating all content is a dramatization of his own theories.

Reply

wallyworldet

2/23/2013 06:01:57 am

I'm just a dumb uneducated viewer of Scott's program but I was hoping to see a complete translation of the artifacts. ????????????

You can read my views about how Wolter manipulated the evidence in this case in my review of the episode, posted on my blog today, 2/23/13.

Reply

Mark Potter

2/28/2013 10:54:55 am

Look guys, the bottom line is this, none of you REALLY know exactly what you're talking about. Being "educated" simply means you can quote somebody's work and perhaps add your own opinions. The books the educated can quote are usually quoted as gospel without the presence of mind that they could flawed themselves. I'm not trying to detract from the brilliance of those who have come before us, but let's face it, 99% of archaeology and most of the sciences is speculation. Yes, educated speculation and more often than not supported speculation, but speculation nonetheless. I listen to academics because of their education and experience, and lets face it they're probably smarter than I am. But let us not loose sight of the fact that almost none of them know exactly what they're talking about - they couldn't possibly. When we're talking about history, it's a guessing game. You look at the evidence and make assumptions based on other evidence and experience. But that fact is this, history and it's telling is more fodder for the imagination than it is absolute fact. A good healthy debate is great, but the demeaning of a person's opinion, or stating that if a person didn't get a worthy education (in your opinion) is foolish and looks more like an example of attempts to shut down an argument that you find uncomfortable. Are the artifacts real? Who knows, the fact is, whatever people think, it's based on opinion because (and too few people are able to admit it) nobody REALLY knows for sure. I find it enjoyable to sit and think about the possibilities and wonder at it all. That is what the TV show does for me.

What you've described is post-modernism, a theory that discounts the possibility of objective knowledge and sees all knowledge as the product of cultural biases and forces. The trouble with post-modernism is that it eliminates any way of evaluating truth claims, making the generation of new knowledge impossible and also making it impossible to discriminate between competing ideas to decide which is true. But the past really did happen, and there is evidence of what occurred.

Reply

Christopher Randolph

2/28/2013 12:05:58 pm

"99% of archaeology and most of the sciences is speculation"

No, no it isn't. That is wrong and you can be proven wrong.

Pity the society in which no one knows the difference between fact and opinion any longer!

People don't sound foolish because they don't have education. People sound foolish when they declare that there's no difference between having an education and not.

Jason -

I used to think this was postmodernism at work too, but it often doesn't rise to that shaky level. As my wife, a high school teacher, can attest, a good deal of people simply no longer know the difference between fact and opinion. Beyond this they don't care to. There's no philosophy at work here. It's just an indifferent intellectual shrugging of the shoulders.

As depressing as the picture of portions of humanity you paint on this blog, I still get the impression you're too much an optimist!

I agree that most people don't have a theoretical framework in mind, though I think that the ideas of postmodernism have filtered down to the extent that the simplified version ("truth is relative," "history is an opinion") has become popularized.

That said, it's depressing how many people can't distinguish between fact and opinion. It seems like nearly every day I encounter someone who can't see a difference between, say, a news report and a Bill O'Reilly or Rachel Maddow opinion about the news. To them, if a person in a suit says it on TV, it's a fact.

terry the censor

2/28/2013 04:10:51 pm

@Mark

Your extreme rhetoric has led to some confused reasoning.

True, we can't know anything with *absolute* certainty because, who knows, maybe all this is a dream! But you are not premissing your argument on something like that, that perception is 100% illusion, I don't think. (If you did, you would know that you are here arguing with yourself, not with strangers, and you would have only yourself to blame!)

If you agree that there is a knowable physical reality, then we can make our ways towards knowing something -- not everything, nothing prefectly, but something. We get things wrong, we adapt, we get it wrong again, but hopefully someday we progress in our imperfect knowledge.

For instance, we spend billions every year on physics but we still don't know how the force of gravity is generated. Even so, we know enough about physics to camp under a pop fly and catch it just about every time, we have hand rails on staircases but not on ceilings, we step into giant metal birds that we built and fly across the ocean and, once upon a time, some geysers even went to the moon!

You wouldn't suggest, say, that Neil Armstrong was able to walk on the moon by the mere force of speculation? You would have to agree that we can indeed know some things if not everything.

In classical skepticism, one may doubt we have true knowledge (as Socrates did), but it is perfectly all right to assent to certain practical truths that work over numerous trials -- facts which would be absurd to deny -- but with the proviso that we may change our mind in the future if new data comes along (this is reasonably explained in Sextus Empiricus, Outlines of Pyrrhonism, book I).

Socrates claimed he knew nothing but he always went hard at those who (falsely) claimed to have knowledge. He considered it his duty (see the Apology).

Scott Wolter is pretending he knows things, that he's an expert. He's putting it out in the public forum, pretending he's educating people. Wolter is doing EXACTLY what the Sophists did in antiquity! And Socrates demolished their arguments, exposed their falsehoods, all the while claiming he had no certain knowledge himself.

Socrates showed it was possible to do what you claim we can't.

Reply

John

5/18/2013 08:16:12 am

Lets assume that all of Mr. Wolter's evidence is strong. The evidence still does not justify the conclusion that early medieval Europeans were in the Americas. It only suggests that early-medieval artifacts were in the Americas sometimes before the 1920's. Mr. Wolter, is it not possible that those artifacts were brough to the Americas sometimes between the Viking arrivals and when they were found in the 20th century?

Mr. Wolten, your credibility is destroyed when you draw unsupported conclusions. For instance, you claim to know the Templars were in the Americas before the 15th century and state it as a fact. You don't proffer fact, not even report theory. All you offer is hypotheses that you pawn off as absolute truths.

Reply

Corinne Zellner

8/3/2013 03:00:49 am

While I find the leaps of conclusions from theory to "proof" problematic in Mr. Wolter's show, the ad hominem attacks that many on this blog resort to are even more troubling. Mr. Wolter professes to wish to get viewers to discuss alternative views on history and it is obvious that his approach, while admittedly flawed in terms of scientific research, is working. I think everyone can agree that getting the general public interested in history, archaeology and related subjects is laudable, even if the methods resorted to by popular media are overly dramatized. I certainly would not consider myself an expert in the field, though I am currently working on a cultural anthro doctorate (with anthro BA and MA) with an emphasis on historic archaeology in the American Southeast, because every day, new discoveries are being made that can either build on or completely alter long-held theories that were previously held to be valid. We can embrace our own ideas while still keeping an open mind, I hope, without slipping back into postmodernism! I will say, in Mr. Wolter's defense, that via his program I have been exposed to some artifacts--whether real or manufactured--I had not been aware of which led me to this site in search of more information. Another, if anyone is interested on the Tucson artifacts, is a book entitled "Byron Cummings: Dean of Southwest Archeology" which has more detailed history on the subject. Also, while isolated settlements or expeditions from cultures outside North America might well have existed, in terms of the dramatic and lasting impact on local societies, few could deny the historic importance of the Columbian Exchange.

Well,as the discussion goes, are they artifacts - yes. Are they genuine - yes (in that they are artifacts). But there is no provenance, context or consequential evidence for proof. Therefore, it could mean only one thing, Meddling Teenage Time Travelers from the future. Take that Bainbridge Scholars!

Reply

Don Hendrix

3/19/2014 12:54:05 pm

There is considerable evidence, for those who wish to seek it, that the Tucson "artifacts" are modern fakes. There is very little evidence that supports their authenticity. The "artifacts" are currently on display at the Arizona Historical Society, and the museum appears to be attempting to cash in on the History Channel association by placing labels on the exhibit, which read, "Fact or Fiction?" Having first read about them in a book while I was in high school in the 60's, I had been hoping to examine them ever since, and, last Monday, I was able to do that. By far the most complete account of the history of the "artifacts" occupies the complete Spring 2009 issue of Journal of the Southwest. I recently purchased what was thought to be the last remaining back issue of the publication, but was told, upon arriving to pick it up, that another box of the issue had been found. It may be obtained from the publishers at the University of Arizona for $15. A Google search of Journal of the Southwest will provide the necessary contact information. You will not find a more complete history of the "artifacts" or more photographs than in this publication. The author is Don Burgess, and he appears to have done a very thorough job of research. I don't believe that anyone who reads it can possibly maintain the position that the "artifacts" are genuine.

Reply

Leave a Reply.

Author

I'm an author and editor who has published on a range of topics, including archaeology, science, and horror fiction. There's more about me in the About Jason tab.